RESUMO
The clinical landscape for endometrial cancer in the UK is evolving to include new management guidelines and targeted treatment options. An understanding of current treatment and management practices in the UK will help services plan and adapt to upcoming changes. AIM: The purpose of this survey was to understand current and anticipated real-world practices for endometrial cancer care in the UK and potential areas for optimisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted in November/December 2021 with UK-based healthcare professionals involved in endometrial cancer management. Questions were aligned with the British Gynaecological Cancer Society/European Society for Medical Oncology recommendations, covering the pathway from diagnosis and treatment to follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 63 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the management of patients with endometrial cancer participated in telephone interviews. The results highlighted variations in management and treatment practices for endometrial cancer and suggest that current UK practice appears to diverge from national and international guidance in some instances. While somatic mismatch repair deficiency testing was used by 89.7% of respondents as mainstream testing, the survey highlighted a lack of access to other key molecular biomarker tests, such as polymerase epsilon (POLE) sequencing (used by only 9.8% of HCPs at the time of the survey). CONCLUSION: The results highlighted several perceived practical barriers to the swift adoption of new therapeutic options, including funding access, limited staff, treatment-related resources, staff education, and support. Our findings support the need for better access to biomarkers that could enable more effective and targeted treatments.
RESUMO
AIMS: New treatment options for advanced ovarian cancer have the potential to significantly change the treatment pathway in the UK. Understanding the structures and responsibilities of multidisciplinary teams/tumour boards (MDT) and regional variations will enable services to adapt more effectively to these changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The KNOW-OC survey was conducted in 2020 to understand the views of a selected group of 66 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in advanced ovarian cancer care in UK hospitals. RESULTS: The results showed that MDT involvement in the management of advanced ovarian cancer varied depending on pathway stage and line of relapse, with 98.5% of HCPs responding that the MDT was involved in decisions at initial presentation, but only 40.9% for patients with multiple relapses. The MDT was mostly responsible for determining whether the patients would undergo primary or interval cytoreductive surgery according to 75.8% of respondents, and most HCPs (80.3%) stated that tumour dissemination patterns were the most important factor influencing this decision. The most commonly assessed biomarkers at the time of the survey were CA125, gBRCA and tBRCA. Homologous recombination deficiency was viewed as the second most important factor for determining prognosis, but few centres had access to testing at the time of survey completion. The use of active surveillance was expected to decrease in favour of first-line targeted therapies. Nearly all (98.5%) HCPs agreed there is a role for secondary cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of recurrence (for carefully selected patients). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlighted UK-specific geographical variation in the views of HCPs on MDT involvement and specific practices, such as molecular biomarker testing, and the overall treatment approach. Together, these findings improve the understanding of reported clinical practice across the UK for ovarian cancer and provide insight into decision-making associated with updates to recommendations for best practice (e.g. European Society for Medical Oncology/European Society of Gynaecological Oncology consensus statements) and the introduction of new treatment options.